Submit a
comment to the EPA:The Carbon Rule is our last, best hope for progress by President Obama
against the pollution that is causing climate change. Take action now.

Dear Dick,

Our last, best hope for significant progress by President Obama
against climate change pollution is the Carbon Rule for existing power
plants, introduced in June.

The question is: how strong will Obama administration officials will
make the rule and how urgently they will implement it?

We got a clue last week when the EPA announced it was delaying by 45
days the public comment deadline on the rule, caving to
a demand of polluting industries and a large group of mostly Republican
lawmakers whose goal is to delay the rule as long as possible.1

We can’t afford further delays which could push back the deadline to
finalize the rule. It’s time to act - and act strongly.

Gone are the days when candidate Barack Obama pledged to slow the
rise of the oceans and heal the planet. Or the hope that President Obama
would truly commit our nation to moving away from fossil fuels.

However, reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants
represents an important, significant step forward. And
as a priority of the administration for President Obama’s last years, it is
achievable.

Contrary to the lies of industry and the politicians it owns, what
the president has proposed is modest — too modest — in scope, especially next
to the urgent facts of our rapidly changing climate.2

But the fact is we still face a massive battle on our hands to make
even modest changes to move our nation away from unlimited carbon pollution.

That is where we come in. If you want the president to take action,
then you need to encourage him to do it, Dick. We all do.

Democratic National Committee Protested, Day
Before Election Day, on Climate Change

The Democrats’ failure to address climate change brought about a
protest yesterday at their national headquarters. This was part of a
week-long series of actions aimed at the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.

Warned: Democratic Party candidates should not count on the
support of voters concerned about climate change

People from a wide variety of organizations will protest Democrats at
their national headquarters (400 South Capitol Street) on Monday, November 3,
2014 at 2:00 PM for their failure to address climate change. They will
be delivering a letter to Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz that
excoriates the party for putting forward policies that are counterproductive
and actually make climate change worse.

They will show how the Democratic Party is corrupted by the oil and
gas industry with signs showing Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo and other party
leaders in bed with Big Oil and they will be delivering pillows with
corporate logos so they can be comfortable.

They warn the Democrats that the climate justice movement will oppose
them in elections writing “Siding with the fossil fuel industry is no longer
the path of least political resistance.” The event comes as the IPCC is
rising alarms on climate change and after 400,000 people marched in New York
City at the People’s Climate March.

The letter begins:

The actions taken by the Democratic Party to address the climate
crisis have not only been inadequate, they have been counterproductive. We
are writing to let you know that Democratic Party candidates should not count
on the support of voters who recognize the urgent need to put in place
effective solutions to the climate crisis.

The Democratic Party’s support for the dirty energy industry’s “all
of the above” energy strategy, mislabeling fracked gas and nuclear energy as
‘bridges to a clean energy economy’ and the increased export of dirty fuels
have directly caused greater Greenhouse Gas emissions as well as harm to
public health, the environment and the economy. The extreme extraction of
fossil and nuclear fuels through unconventional methods such as hydrofracking
and mountaintop removal have been and continue to be responsible for
contamination of the air, land and water and significant suffering, disease
and death. The transport of these substances by pipeline and train have
caused further damage and leave communities at risk for catastrophic events
such as major pipeline spills and oil train explosions.

The protest is part of a week long series of actions at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission that began Monday morning and
continues through Friday. Protesters will be shutting down FERC
with sit-ins and other actions.

Noam Chomsky, “Can Civilization Survive Really
Existing Capitalism?”

Google the title for several sources of the text. I read the speech in the new selection, Masters
of Mankind, Essays and Lectures, 1969-2013.
To see Chomsky presenting it in Dublin, April 2, 2013, go to:

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) provides a
clear view of the current state of scientific knowledge relevant to climate
change. It contains three Working Group (WG) reports and a Synthesis Report
(SYR). The outline and content can be found in the AR5 reference document and
SYR Scoping document.

(Photo: Chris / Flickr)As
global capitalist economic growth accelerates planetary ecological collapse,
this article, originally published on November 10, 2013, argues that -
impossible as it may seem at present - only the most radical solution - the
overthrow of global capitalism, the construction of a mostly publicly-owned and
mostly planned eco-socialist economy based on global "contraction and
convergence," on substantial de-industrialization, on sharing, on much
less work and much more play and on bottom-up democratic management - is, in
fact, the only alternative to the collapse of civilization and ecological
suicide.

When, on May 10, 2013, scientists at Mauna Loa Observatory on the big
island of Hawaii announced that global CO2 emissions had crossed a threshold at
400 parts per million for the first time in millions of years, a sense of dread
spread around the world - not only among climate scientists.

CO2 emissions have been relentlessly climbing since Charles David
Keeling first set up his tracking station near the summit of Mauna Loa
Observatory in 1958 to monitor average daily global CO2 levels. At that time,
CO2 concentrations registered 315ppm. CO2 emissions and atmospheric
concentrations have been climbing ever since and, as the records show,
temperatures rises will follow. For all the climate summits, the promises of
"voluntary restraint," the carbon trading and carbon taxes, the
growth of CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations has not just been
relentless, it has been accelerating in what scientists have dubbed the
“Keeling Curve."

In the early 1960s, CO2ppm concentrations in the atmosphere grew by
0.7ppm per year. In recent decades, especially as China has industrialized, the
growth rate has tripled to 2.1ppm per year. In just the first 17 weeks of 2013,
CO2 levels jumped by 2.74ppm compared to last year -- "the biggest
increase since benchmark monitoring stations high on the Hawaiian volcano of
Mauna Loa began taking measurements in 1958."[1] Carbon concentrations
have not been this high since the Pliocene period, between 3 million and 5
million years ago, when global average temperatures were 3 degrees or 4 degrees
Centigrade hotter than today, the Arctic was ice-free, sea levels were about 40
meters higher, jungles covered northern Canada and Florida was under water -
along with coastal locations we now call New York City, London, Shanghai, Hong
Kong, Sydney and many others.

Crossing this threshold has fueled fears that we are fast approaching
"tipping points" - melting of the subarctic tundra or thawing and
releasing the vast quantities of methane in the Arctic sea bottom - that will
accelerate global warming beyond any human capacity to stop it: "I wish it
weren't true, but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400-ppm
level without losing a beat," said Scripps Institute geochemist Ralph
Keeling, whose father, Charles, set up the first monitoring stations in 1958:
"At this pace, we'll hit 450 ppm within a few decades."

"It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster," said
Maureen E. Raymo, a scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a unit
of Columbia University.[2]

Why are we marching to disaster, "sleepwalking to extinction"
as The Guardian's George Monbiot once put it? Why can't we slam on
the brakes before we ride off the cliff to collapse? I'm going to argue here
that the problem is rooted in the
requirements of capitalist reproduction, that large corporations are
destroying life on Earth, that they can't help themselves, they can't change or
change very much, that so long as we live under this system we have little
choice but to go along in this destruction, to keep pouring on the gas instead
of slamming on the brakes.

The only alternative - impossible as this may seem right now - is to
overthrow this global economic system and all of the governments of the 1% that
prop it up and replace them with a global economic democracy, a radical
bottom-up political democracy, an ecosocialist civilization. I argue that,
although we are fast approaching the precipice of ecological collapse, the
means to derail this train wreck are in the making as, around the world, we are
witnessing a near-simultaneous global mass democratic "awakening," as
the Brazilians call it, almost a global uprising from Tahir Square to Zuccotti
Park, from Athens to Istanbul to Beijing and beyond such as the world has never
seen.

To be sure, like Occupy Wall Street, these movements are still
inchoate, still mainly protesting what's wrong rather than fighting for an
alternative social order. Like Occupy, they have yet to clearly and robustly
answer that crucial question, "Don't like capitalism? What's your
alternative?" Yet they are working on it, and they are for the most part
instinctively and radically democratic. And in this lies our hope. I'm going to
make my case in the form of six theses:
MORE http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19872-capitalism-and-the-destruction-of-life-on-earth-six-theses-on-saving-the-humans

“Even if we could convince everyone to make all the adjustments
advocated [by environmentalists], it simply would not significantly change our
environmental trajectory—which is headed toward an ecological cliff.”

“Framing environmental deterioration as the result of poor individual
choices—littering, leaving the lights on. . .failing to carpool—not only
distracts us from identifying and demanding change from the real drivers of
environmental decline [corporations, the US capitalist system]. “It also removes these issues from the
political realm to the personal, implying that the solution is in our personal
choices rather than in better policies, business practices, and structural
context.”

CRITIQUES OF CAPITALISM[DB1]
versus CLIMATE CHANGE, LEADING TO ACTION, In Chronological Order of Publication

Speth 2008

Magdoff and Foster 2011

Naomi Klein 2014

Mar
28, 2008
320 p., 5 1/2 x 8 1/4

The
Bridge at the Edge of the World

Capitalism, the Environment, and
Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability by James
Gustave Speth. Yale UP, 2008.

How serious are the threats to our environment? Here is one measure
of the problem: if we continue to do exactly what we are doing, with nogrowth
in the human population or the world economy, the world in the latter part of
this century will be unfit to live in. Of course human activities are not
holding at current levels—they are accelerating, dramatically—and so, too, is
the pace of climate disruption, biotic impoverishment, and toxification. In
this book Gus Speth, author ofRed Sky at Morning and a widely
respected environmentalist, begins with the observation that the
environmental community has grown in strength and sophistication, but the
environment has continued to decline, to the point that we are now at the
edge of catastrophe.

Speth contends that this situation is a severe indictment of the
economic and political system we call modern capitalism. Our vital task is
now to change the operating instructions for today’s destructive world
economy before it is too late. The book is about how to do that.

James Gustave Speth, a distinguished leader and founder of
environmental institutions over the past four decades, is dean of the School
of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University. He was awarded
Japan’s Blue Planet Prize for “a lifetime of creative and visionary
leadership in the search for science-based solutions to global environmental
problems.” He lives in New Haven, CT.

Efforts to ally religion (and especially Christianity) with
Marxism (and other sorts of socialism) built on their converging social
criticisms as capitalism achieved global hegemony over the last two
centuries. The specific objects of those criticisms included inequalities
of wealth, inequalities of income, the fetishism of commodities, the
idolatrous worship of material objects (and their accumulation) at the
expense of spiritual values, and the calculating treatment of human beings
as mere means to economic goals. The general theme of those criticisms from
the side of religion has been that religious values fundamentally
contradict and clash with those social conditions accompanying capitalism and
thus with the capitalism that reproduces them. That theme has been and
remains powerfully persuasive in its contemporary expressions.

Yet the alliance of Marxism and religion is not as strong as it
once was and needs renewal for the twenty-first century. Here I propose to
broaden the theme by adding another critique that played only a secondary
and implicit role in the Christian-Marxist dialogues so far. This critique
is taken from Marx’s analysis of capitalist production and resonates deeply
with certain religious values. My goal is significantly to strengthen the
alliance of Marxism and religion.
Read More http://www.rdwolff.com/content/capitalism-economy-and-religion-christian-marxist-dialogue

Around the world, consciousness of the threat to our environment is
growing. The majority of solutions on offer, from using efficient light bulbs
to biking to work, focus on individual lifestyle changes, yet the scale of
the crisis requires far deeper adjustments. Ecology and Socialism argues
that time still remains to save humanity and the planet, but only by building social movements for
environmental justice that can demand qualitative changes in our economy,
workplaces, and infrastructure.

“Williams adds a new and vigorous voice to the growing awareness
that, yes, it is our capitalist system that is ruining the natural foundation
of our civilization and threatening the very idea of a future. I am
particularly impressed by the way he develops a clear and powerful argument
for an ecological socialism directly from the actual ground of struggle,
whether against climate change, systematic poisoning from pollution, or the
choking stream of garbage. Ecology and Socialism is a
notable addition to the growing movement to save our planet from
death-dealing capitalism.”—Joel Kovel, author of The Enemy of Nature

“Finally, a book that bridges the best of the scholarly and activist
literatures in socialist ecology! Sophisticated and compelling, eschewing
academic jargons ‘postmodern’ and otherwise,
Ecology and Socialism more than competently champions a
Marxist approach to environmental crisis and the kind of economic democracy
needed to achieve an ecologically friendly system of production and human
development.” —Paul Burkett, author of Marxism and
Ecological Economics

Fred
Magdoff (fmagdoff@uvm.edu) is professor emeritus of plant and soil science
at the University of Vermont and adjunct professor of crop and soil science
at Cornell University. He is the author of Building Soils for Better Crops
(with Harold van Es, third edition, 2009), and The ABCs of the Economic
Crisis (with Michael Yates, Monthly Review Press, 2009). John Bellamy Foster (jfoster@monthlyreview.org)
is editor of Monthly Review and professor of sociology at the
University of Oregon. His most recent book is The Ecological Revolution
(Monthly Review Press, 2009).

Reading the book: Chap. 4 “The
Environment and Capitalism” could be a good beginning, if you remember that
the preceding chapters explain the ideas being summarized in Ch. 4: Ch. 1 “The Planetary Ecological Crisis,”
Ch. 2 “Business as Usual: the Road to Planetary Destruction,” Ch. 3 “The
Growth Imperative of Capitalism.” Then
Ch. 5 “Can Capitalism Go Green,” on the basis of the preceding, argues no it
cannot. Finally, Ch. 6 “An Ecological
Revolution Is Not Just Possible—It’s Essential.” –Dick]

Discussion of the book by Magdoff and Foster preceded its
publication:

This 2010 essay is apparently a summary of their book, whichis
available in UAF’s Mullins Library HC79.E5 M329 2011. And I have both the article and the book
if you wish to borrow.

From the discussion in the magazine:

For those concerned with the fate of the earth, the time has come to
face facts: not simply the dire reality of climate change but also the
pressing need for social-system change. The failure to arrive at a world
climate agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009 was not simply an abdication
of world leadership, as is often suggested, but had deeper roots in the
inability of the capitalist system to address the accelerating threat to life
on the planet. Knowledge of the nature and limits of capitalism, and the
means of transcending it, has therefore become a matter of survival. In the
words of Fidel Castro in December 2009: “Until very recently, the discussion
[on the future of world society] revolved around the kind of society we would
have. Today, the discussion centers on whether human society will survive.”1

NSP Book Group - Doing Justice in an Unjust World An Invite to JOIN.

You are invited to join a brand new NSP Book group. We'll be reading
the same book and then communicating through email with each other about our
reactions. At some point we might want to make it live on a conference call
or on a Skype or G chat. And we are starting with a fabulous book, Resisting
Structural Evil: Love as Ecological and Economic Vocation by Cynthia Moe
Lobeda (a professor at SeattleUniversity ). 2013. What is so powerful about this book is that
it is grounded in spiritual and religious principles yet is an amazingly
powerful critique of capitalism. Let me explain.

The
everyday workings of global capitalism are endangering the survival of the
planet and perpetrating structural economic violence on many people in the
developing world.

How can flawed people like ourselves who are hopelessly entangled in practices
and institutions that perpetuate injustice and violence against the earth (and
ultimately our own children and grandchildren) possibly live an ethically
responsible, justice-promoting life?
(excerpted from Thad Williamson's review of Cynthia Moe Lobeda's book--read
the review to get a taste of what the book is about and why it's worth
reading:http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/doing-justice-in-an-unjust-world)
If you are intrigued, please email me, Amy Broyles, at northknoxamy@gmail.com.
We will set up a private email list that allows us to have an ongoing, open
conversation as we read together. Feel free to join in at anytime - it is
sure to be a rich discussion. If you can't make the first date, just
email me at a later date, once you've gotten and read the first chapter or
two. You are welcome to join at anytime.

This is a book that will inform, inspire, and can transform one's
perspective. I look forward to your reply, and to hearing your thoughts and
insights on the challenging topic that Cynthia D. Moe-Lobeda explores in this
book!

The Left, such as it is, has kind of opted out of [addressing] climate
change. With some exceptions, the climate has never taken off as an issue—it's
always sort of tacked on.

That the clock on climate change is ticking—and louder by the day—is
not news to anyone. Like many people, journalist Naomi Klein spent years
feeling overwhelmed by scientists' increasingly apocalyptic pronouncements
about impending planetary doom, and largely opted to ignore them. She had her
hands full exposing the abuses of multinational corporations like Microsoft and
Nike in her first book, No Logo
(1999), and the imposition of free market policies and expanding inequality on
unwilling populations around the globe in her 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine.

But Klein came to realize not only that climate change was so all-encompassing
and urgent that it couldn’t be ignored, but also that it creates a unique
opportunity. Climate change “could be the best argument progressives have ever
had,” she says, to create the kind of bottom-up mass movements that can not
only force action on the environment, but fight economic inequality, create
more democratic societies, rebuilding a strong public sector, addressing
historical gender and racial injustices, and a litany of other issues.

Doing so, however, won't simply require changing a few lightbulbs. “We
have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because those
things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism,” Klein writes. In ThisChanges Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, she explores
the failures of “Big Green” environmental groups and supposedly benevolent
CEOs, the right-wing climate deniers who actually understand the stakes of
climate change better than many progressives, and the grassroots movements
coalescing to fight climate change. Klein spoke with In These Times from
her home in Toronto.

ITT: Your book begins with a
discussion of the Right and climate change denial. This makes sense both
because the Right has waged a very effective campaign to insist that global
warming isn't real and to block potentially helpful legislation, and because,
you argue, they actually understand what's at stake in addressing climate
change better than most liberals do: It will require a total overhaul of free-market capitalism as we know it.
Why does the Right understand climate change better than the Left?

Naomi: First, it's important to understand that the climate-change denier movement is often
entirely a product of free market thinking. The conferences like the annual
Heartland Conference, the publications—they're overwhelmingly published by
right-wing think tanks like CATO, the American Enterprise Institute and [the]
Heartland [Institute].

Heartland is most
famous now as a climate-change deniers institution—I think a lot of people have
only heard of it in the context of their annual climate change conference. But
Heartland is a free market think tank, first and foremost. It's been around for
a long time. It exists to push the hardcore
neoliberal platform of deregulation and austerity policies, anti-labor policies.
It's a familiar package.

When I interviewed Joe Bast, the
head of the Heartland Institute, at the conference a couple of years ago,
he was very frank about this with me. He said that he became interested in
climate change not because he found a problem with the science, but because he understood that if the science was true
and left unchallenged, it would mean “anything goes” in terms of government
regulation. You'd have to intervene in the market. You'd have to invest in the
public sphere. Basically, their entire ideological project would be dead in the
water.

So they dug in, as he explained, and found what they believed were
flaws in the science. If you look at who deniers actually are, it’s clear that
what’s driving them is a desire to protect the neoliberal project.

They're absolutely right that a crisis of this magnitude requires
collective action, requires investment in the public sphere, requires strong
regulation. That doesn't mean that it requires socialism. Within that, there's
a big range of state responses—some of which, in my opinion, are very
undesirable, some more desirable. But the idea that you can just have a laissez
faire response to climate change is pretty absurd.

The reason that's relevant is because that's what a lot of the main
[environmentalist] groups have been telling us: that we can leave this to the
market. Well, the track record for leaving it to the market is 61 percent
emission increases since we've been supposedly dealing with climate change.

In reading your chapter “Big Green” on the major environmentalist
groups—which you give a pretty thorough excoriation—I was struck by the way the
right- and left-wing responses to climate change mirror the political shifts of
the Right and Left in the era of neoliberalism generally. On one hand, you have
the Right, which actually understands what’s at stake and has taken hardline
stances to prevent any kind of mildly progressive action, and on the other, you
have a liberalism that is just drifting further and further rightward, largely
capitulating to the Right’s agenda. Can you talk about Big Green?

Naomi: Big Green are liberals—it’s a very liberal movement. The Left,
such as it is, has kind of opted out of [addressing] climate change. With some
exceptions, the climate has never taken off as an issue—it's always sort of
tacked on. I think it's significant that when Occupy formed, the first
manifesto that listed everything wrong with capitalism didn't mention climate
change. To me, that's a telling oversight.

I think climate change is the best argument we've ever had against
capitalism destabilizing life on earth. Yet somehow the Left has opted out.
Part of that is the idea that the climate movement was Al Gore, for God's sake,
and was Hollywood celebrities and liberals. We on the Left didn’t want to have
anything to do with that, so let's leave it to the Big Green groups.

I think it's also a kind of fatigue on the Left, because there's so
many issues we're supposed to be dealing with, and this seemed to be one issue
that somebody else was dealing with. So it's not that lefties didn't think
climate change was happening, they just treated it like, “Okay, I'm going to
avoid this one, because I've got my hands full, and it doesn't seem that
urgent.”

I don't think you can ever estimate the impact of people being afraid
of making mistakes. Climate policy is an incredibly wonky world. Big Green has
managed to take an issue that is actually pretty simple and make it amazingly
inaccessible and arcane.

You've got two worlds that are both tricky. One is the science, and the
other is policy. Both of them are seemingly very complex. It's not a very
welcoming world if you're not in it. There's a lot of guys waving their charts
at each other. And deniers have been really effective with their “gotchas.”
There was this feeling that you had to hedge everything—that you couldn't make
a connection between extreme weather and climate because they aren’t the same
thing. There were no clear statements coming out for a while.

When you have language that's that hedged and complex and specialized,
it sends a message to regular people that this is an experts-only club and
you're not in it. I don't think the Left is immune from that.

You emphasize that capitalism is responsible for our climate
predicament, but you also mention, mostly in passing, the need for a
transformation in how all people in countries like the United States and Canada
live. And at one point, you mention a turn away from some of the Enlightenment
values that you associate with extractivism. When I hear people on the Left
talk about turning away from some parts of Enlightenment and modernity, I
sometimes get very nervous.

Naomi: I think we should be as clear as possible that [addressing
climate change] isn't about being anti-technology. It's about the need for
technology as a decentralized power. Technology can be at the center of just
about any transformation, but that doesn't mean all technology is good.

We need to be careful of a completely anti-progress fetishizing of some
idyllic past. But at the same time, hanging out with geoengineers really scared
the hell out of me. What's clear is that the further we go down this road, and
the more this Francis Bacon idea of progress becomes equated with taming and
controlling nature, the more these ever-larger and higher-risk technologies are
going to take hold.

I think we do need to talk about that fundamental issue of whether our
place on earth is to dominate nature—whether we're at war with it. I'm not
against science, but we're on the verge of scaling up the risks in a really
frightening way if we don't ask ourselves some really tough questions about
just how smart we are. We don't want to wallow in ignorance, but there are huge
dangers in overestimating our intelligence.

Near the end of the book, you talk about growing impatient with the
structureless movements that you've defended in the past, such as the
anti-globalization protests around the turn of the century. Is this because of
the urgency of climate change, or are there other reasons?

Naomi: I don't think I'm the only one. I think that's been an
evolution, and my generation—the Seattle generation of anti-globalization
activists—swung really far in an anti-structure direction. Anything that seemed
like politics or institutions was regarded with great suspicion. What I see in
the Occupy generation and in the anti-austerity movements in Europe is a desire
to find a route that balances a real belief in decentralization and a rightful
suspicion of centralized state power with a serious engagement with politics
and policy.

That's why I spend a fair amount of time in the book talking about
successes, imperfect as they are, of Germany's energy transition. It's a major
social movement victory—Angela Merkel did not do this out of the goodness of
her heart, she did it because Germany has the strongest anti-nuclear movement
in the world and a very strong environmental movement more broadly.

The speed of Germany's transition is stunning. Twenty-five percent
renewables in a decade-and-a-half, much of it via decentralized
community-controlled co-ops. This isn’t “hey, let's do this, me and my friends
starting an energy co-op”—this is a broad national policy that created a
context in which you could have a multiplication of alternatives that coalesce into
what I would argue is the most meaningful energy transition anywhere in the
world.

I know some of the people involved in [the German movement]. Their
roots are in the anti-globalization movement, too, and they used to be a lot
more dismissive of engaging with politics. But people are getting their hands
dirty. You see it in Seattle with the fight for minimum wage. You see it in
Chicago with the teachers. You see it in Iceland with the anti-austerity
movement birthing its own political structure. You see it in Spain with
Podemos. More and more, there are these new political formations where people
are trying to change the very nature of politics.

It's not only the climate science that makes me impatient. When I was
defending the anti-globalization movement's structurelessness, I was mostly
trying to fend off other people's attempts to co-opt the movement and say
“Here's my ten-point plan.” I said, “Give it some time—we're going to come up
with the plan ourselves.” But we didn't.

Right now you can get a copy of Naomi Klein's This Changes
Everything by donating $50 or more to In These Times.

MICAH UETRICHT Micah Uetricht
is an In These Times contributing editor. He is an assistant editor at
Jacobin and has written for The Nation, Al Jazeera America, Dissent, Salon, and
the Chicago Reader, and the author of Strike for America: Chicago Teachers Against Austerity
(Verso/Jacobin Books, March 2014). Perhaps most importantly, he is also a proud
former In These Times editorial intern. Follow him on Twitter
@micahuetricht or contact him at micah.uetricht [at] gmail.

The People Search for Transformative Mass Liberation

World
Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change, and the Rights of Mother Earth, April
22, 2010, Cochabamba, Bolivia

World People's Conference on
Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth

PEOPLE’S AGREEMENT, Aril 22, 2010, Cochabamba, Bolivia. Magdoff and Foster’s What Every Environmentalist. . . . includes
the full text.

Dean Baker. The
Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and
Get Richer. Center for Economic
Policy, 2006.

John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney. The Endless Crisis: How Monopoly-Finance
Capital Produces Stagnation and Upheaval from the U.S.A. to China. Monthly Review P, 2102.

Contexts

2006: Year
discussion of climate change by members of OMNI began.

2007: IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report, declaring the
evidence for man-made global warming “unequivocal” and long-term sea level rise
and other disastrous impacts of climate change now inevitable. Soon afterward the Report was revised to
reflect overwhelming evidence that the Report had underestimated magnitude and
rapid development of climate change and weather extremes.

2008: The
year apparently that formal OMNI Climate Change Book Forums began. At least, I have a list of the books we
discussed 2008-2012; it should be brought up to date. Dick 9-10-14